Stealership totals customer's ZL1....
#1
この道は毛むくじゃらのマンコだらけ..
Thread Starter
Stealership totals customer's ZL1....
I didn't see this posted here yet.
Wow, just wow...
http://jalopnik.com/dealership-total...eal-1498804012
Wow, just wow...
http://jalopnik.com/dealership-total...eal-1498804012
Debbie and John Hooper took their cherished Chevy Camaro ZL1 to the dealer under warranty to fix a minor paint problem. Then they allege they got a call from the dealer saying they'd wrecked the car. Now they've offered a replacement, but it might not be enough.
The Hoopers didn't just buy their show-worthy black ZL1 for $60,000. They had to trade in a 2011 Camaro SS and also sell their pristine 1969 Camaro SS as well to get the new car. By all appearances, they loved their ZL1.
So you can understand their shock when the Georgetown Chevrolet (one dealership run by First State Chevrolet in Delaware) called them to say that one of their employees took out their car, went on a joyride, lost control, and crashed into a telephone pole.
As John Hooper explained on this post on the Camaro5 forum back in December, the dealership killed their car and didn't do a thing to help them.
On Sunday, December 15, 2013, my prized 2012 Camaro ZL1 took its last breath at 4:47 pm. The car was at the dealer in Georgetown, DE for paint issues (under warranty). It had been locked in the service bay over the weekend. On Sunday afternoon, an employee of the dealership (service writer) entered the locked building, removed the keys to my car from the service department, and went on a joyride. The car was totaled when he lost control and sheared off a telephone pole.
The dealership informed my wife and I on Monday morning at 9:00 a.m. of our loss. Yes, they waited over 16 hours to tell us about our car. I am sure they discussed the incident with their attorneys prior to calling us.
Things get worse from there.
It is now Friday, the car has been officially totaled by the insurance company, and the dealership is telling us it is not their problem. They even refuse to provide my wife and I (and our insurance company) with their insurance information.
And the outlook didn't look rosy from there.
I will never be able to afford another new ZL1, and basically I don't think I should have to be put in the position to have to buy a new one. We trusted the dealership to use vigilance while our car was in their possession. We can't even have charges pressed against their employee for theft because the car was not in OUR possession when stolen.
Something about this whole thing just doesn't seem right. What would you do if this was your baby?
And don't think that John is telling a tall tale. The local Cape Gazette reports that the Delaware State police charged Eric Peterson with careless driving and failure to have insurance identification in possession. First State Chevrolet owner Bob Hansen told the Gazette that Peterson isn't working at the dealership anymore.
That all happened in the middle of December. On the 30th, the dealership told him they would finally be making good with replacing his car, at least that's what John thought, as he explained in this forum post.
In this post from two days ago, however, John revealed that the dealership didn't do the right thing at all — they offered to sell him another ZL1. It was in worse condition than the one he had before and while the dealership claimed their replacement ZL1 was a one-owner car, it really was a two-owner car.
I have been patient. I finally got a call on Monday (1/6) to come over to look at the car they "found" for me. They were sure I would be pleased. Imagine my surprise when the car they "found" turned out to be a trade-in on a new Stingray. The car was a 2012 ZL1, black like mine, but with a sunroof (which I do not want), 34% more miles than mine, new tires (why did it need new tires at 13,588 miles?), different wheels than mine, non-Chevrolet emblems front and back, and tinted windows. Also absolutely NO documentation on the car, even though I was told the car had more documentation than mine.
I was not even told the mileage on the car until I went out and sat in it for myself. Amazing that we had to go over all the figures first. And yes, I was to buy this car from them. They did offer $4K "feel good" (their words, not mine) money to buy the correct emblems and rims. However, nothing was mentioned about a lower price for the higher mileage.
John and Debbie left the dealership, not happy with the proposed car. They went on the Camaro5 forum and ordered themselves a CarFax, only to find that the car had two owners not one, and that it had been involved in an accident.
So they were basically trying to SELL us a 2-owner vehicle that had previous body damage, along with tinted windows, incorrect emblems, more mileage, the apparent need for new tires, and heaven only knows what else.
They called today to tell us that their original offer to buy THAT car from them was ALL they were going to (or willing to) offer. Take it or leave it. We really did not want a twice-used car with no documentation and do not feel it was a reasonable replacement for our show-winning, pristine, fully documented car with much less mileage.
So folks, almost a month later, I am still making payments on a car I do not have, and certainly cannot drive. And the dealer is unwilling to step up and "do the right thing."
That's not how the dealership sees things. I spoke with the general manager at the dealership and they told me they had gone "above and beyond" with their dealings with the Hoopers.
The dealership confirmed that they fired the employee "on the spot" and worked to provide a replacement car of not just equal but greater value than the Hoopers' ZL1.
The dealership claims to have had their replacement car reviewed by a certified classic car appraiser, and on top of that they offered $5,000 along with the car. This is money outside of any dealings the Hoopers have with their insurance company.4
The general manager told me that the Hoopers then asked for $11,000 instead of $5,000 to take the replacement car. That offer did not pan out.
"I almost think it's extortion," the general manager told me. "I don't think any sane person would turn down [this deal.]" He later concluded, "I almost think they're as bad as the guy who stole the car."567
The general manager explained that the dealership's insurance told them not to offer any more deals to the Hoopers and to let them either take the existing offer or not.
And that's where things stand now. The crux off the issue hangs on whether the dealership's substitute ZL1 is an acceptable replacement or not. The dealership is convinced that it is, and the Hoopers appear to believe is it not. It doesn't look pretty from here on out.
The Hoopers didn't just buy their show-worthy black ZL1 for $60,000. They had to trade in a 2011 Camaro SS and also sell their pristine 1969 Camaro SS as well to get the new car. By all appearances, they loved their ZL1.
So you can understand their shock when the Georgetown Chevrolet (one dealership run by First State Chevrolet in Delaware) called them to say that one of their employees took out their car, went on a joyride, lost control, and crashed into a telephone pole.
As John Hooper explained on this post on the Camaro5 forum back in December, the dealership killed their car and didn't do a thing to help them.
On Sunday, December 15, 2013, my prized 2012 Camaro ZL1 took its last breath at 4:47 pm. The car was at the dealer in Georgetown, DE for paint issues (under warranty). It had been locked in the service bay over the weekend. On Sunday afternoon, an employee of the dealership (service writer) entered the locked building, removed the keys to my car from the service department, and went on a joyride. The car was totaled when he lost control and sheared off a telephone pole.
The dealership informed my wife and I on Monday morning at 9:00 a.m. of our loss. Yes, they waited over 16 hours to tell us about our car. I am sure they discussed the incident with their attorneys prior to calling us.
Things get worse from there.
It is now Friday, the car has been officially totaled by the insurance company, and the dealership is telling us it is not their problem. They even refuse to provide my wife and I (and our insurance company) with their insurance information.
And the outlook didn't look rosy from there.
I will never be able to afford another new ZL1, and basically I don't think I should have to be put in the position to have to buy a new one. We trusted the dealership to use vigilance while our car was in their possession. We can't even have charges pressed against their employee for theft because the car was not in OUR possession when stolen.
Something about this whole thing just doesn't seem right. What would you do if this was your baby?
And don't think that John is telling a tall tale. The local Cape Gazette reports that the Delaware State police charged Eric Peterson with careless driving and failure to have insurance identification in possession. First State Chevrolet owner Bob Hansen told the Gazette that Peterson isn't working at the dealership anymore.
That all happened in the middle of December. On the 30th, the dealership told him they would finally be making good with replacing his car, at least that's what John thought, as he explained in this forum post.
In this post from two days ago, however, John revealed that the dealership didn't do the right thing at all — they offered to sell him another ZL1. It was in worse condition than the one he had before and while the dealership claimed their replacement ZL1 was a one-owner car, it really was a two-owner car.
I have been patient. I finally got a call on Monday (1/6) to come over to look at the car they "found" for me. They were sure I would be pleased. Imagine my surprise when the car they "found" turned out to be a trade-in on a new Stingray. The car was a 2012 ZL1, black like mine, but with a sunroof (which I do not want), 34% more miles than mine, new tires (why did it need new tires at 13,588 miles?), different wheels than mine, non-Chevrolet emblems front and back, and tinted windows. Also absolutely NO documentation on the car, even though I was told the car had more documentation than mine.
I was not even told the mileage on the car until I went out and sat in it for myself. Amazing that we had to go over all the figures first. And yes, I was to buy this car from them. They did offer $4K "feel good" (their words, not mine) money to buy the correct emblems and rims. However, nothing was mentioned about a lower price for the higher mileage.
John and Debbie left the dealership, not happy with the proposed car. They went on the Camaro5 forum and ordered themselves a CarFax, only to find that the car had two owners not one, and that it had been involved in an accident.
So they were basically trying to SELL us a 2-owner vehicle that had previous body damage, along with tinted windows, incorrect emblems, more mileage, the apparent need for new tires, and heaven only knows what else.
They called today to tell us that their original offer to buy THAT car from them was ALL they were going to (or willing to) offer. Take it or leave it. We really did not want a twice-used car with no documentation and do not feel it was a reasonable replacement for our show-winning, pristine, fully documented car with much less mileage.
So folks, almost a month later, I am still making payments on a car I do not have, and certainly cannot drive. And the dealer is unwilling to step up and "do the right thing."
That's not how the dealership sees things. I spoke with the general manager at the dealership and they told me they had gone "above and beyond" with their dealings with the Hoopers.
The dealership confirmed that they fired the employee "on the spot" and worked to provide a replacement car of not just equal but greater value than the Hoopers' ZL1.
The dealership claims to have had their replacement car reviewed by a certified classic car appraiser, and on top of that they offered $5,000 along with the car. This is money outside of any dealings the Hoopers have with their insurance company.4
The general manager told me that the Hoopers then asked for $11,000 instead of $5,000 to take the replacement car. That offer did not pan out.
"I almost think it's extortion," the general manager told me. "I don't think any sane person would turn down [this deal.]" He later concluded, "I almost think they're as bad as the guy who stole the car."567
The general manager explained that the dealership's insurance told them not to offer any more deals to the Hoopers and to let them either take the existing offer or not.
And that's where things stand now. The crux off the issue hangs on whether the dealership's substitute ZL1 is an acceptable replacement or not. The dealership is convinced that it is, and the Hoopers appear to believe is it not. It doesn't look pretty from here on out.
#2
You don't let stuff like this escalate to the internet... once it's there, you're fucked. And this story hit jalopnik of all places too.
#6
Traded in a "pristine 1969 Camaro SS" for a ZL1 Camaro?
The following users liked this post:
RPhilMan1 (01-13-2014)
#7
"I almost think it's extortion," the general manager told me. "I don't think any sane person would turn down [this deal.]" He later concluded, "I almost think they're as bad as the guy who stole the car."
Wow, not a good comment to make about 2 clients who are more than in the right to demand a better deal when the dealer hid valuable information on the replacement car. If anything, the general manage is as bad as the guy who stole the car; he's screwing them out of a replacement just as his jackass employee screwed them out of the original.
Never the less, I'm not really surprised. You'd be surprised (or not?) at some of the people they hire to work behind the scenes at dealerships.
Wow, not a good comment to make about 2 clients who are more than in the right to demand a better deal when the dealer hid valuable information on the replacement car. If anything, the general manage is as bad as the guy who stole the car; he's screwing them out of a replacement just as his jackass employee screwed them out of the original.
Never the less, I'm not really surprised. You'd be surprised (or not?) at some of the people they hire to work behind the scenes at dealerships.
Trending Topics
#8
The general manager told me that the Hoopers then asked for $11,000 instead of $5,000 to take the replacement car. That offer did not pan out.
The following 2 users liked this post by phee:
justnspace (01-11-2014),
RPhilMan1 (01-13-2014)
#10
Senior Moderator
How the hell do you not have tier1 comprehensive insurance on a ZL1? If they do, what the hell are they doing talking to the dealership. A good insurance company will have that money in no time.
Something isn't adding up here.
Something isn't adding up here.
The following 9 users liked this post by oo7spy:
Costco (01-11-2014),
F23A4 (01-11-2014),
justnspace (01-11-2014),
knight rider (01-11-2014),
mrmako (01-11-2014),
and 4 others liked this post.
#11
Senior Moderator
#13
that dealer screwed up BIG time. if they had any common sense, they would have went above and beyond to make it right. IE NEW CAR...
dealer is getting digitally raped on FB as well
https://www.facebook.com/Wewreckedazl1
dealer is getting digitally raped on FB as well
https://www.facebook.com/Wewreckedazl1
#14
that dealer screwed up BIG time. if they had any common sense, they would have went above and beyond to make it right. IE NEW CAR...
dealer is getting digitally raped on FB as well
https://www.facebook.com/Wewreckedazl1
dealer is getting digitally raped on FB as well
https://www.facebook.com/Wewreckedazl1
#15
Despite what the dealer tells you, they are responsible for damage while they are operating the car....and responsible for their employee's actions while they are operating the car...
ultimately the dealership should take care of the customer and then bring civil/criminal charges against the employee...
#18
Senior Moderator
When someone damages your car and refuses to cover your loss, you are generally left with taking the claim to your insurance. Their whole business relies on paying out as little as possible, so they will do everything they can to track down the party at fault. They have their own team of lawyers to handle the necessary legal actions.
I have been hit by a "friend" (loser and drug dealer) who denied having insurance and told me tough shit. I made the claim through my insurance, they looked into the situation, and they found out his girlfriend had insurance on the car (it was hers). They settled with her insurance, and repaid my deductible.
If someone refuses liability, you don't run around trying to get them to make it right. You pay your insurance for a reason, to take care of stuff beyond your control or cover your ass.
I have been hit by a "friend" (loser and drug dealer) who denied having insurance and told me tough shit. I made the claim through my insurance, they looked into the situation, and they found out his girlfriend had insurance on the car (it was hers). They settled with her insurance, and repaid my deductible.
If someone refuses liability, you don't run around trying to get them to make it right. You pay your insurance for a reason, to take care of stuff beyond your control or cover your ass.
The following 4 users liked this post by oo7spy:
#19
When someone damages your car and refuses to cover your loss, you are generally left with taking the claim to your insurance. Their whole business relies on paying out as little as possible, so they will do everything they can to track down the party at fault. They have their own team of lawyers to handle the necessary legal actions.
I have been hit by a "friend" (loser and drug dealer) who denied having insurance and told me tough shit. I made the claim through my insurance, they looked into the situation, and they found out his girlfriend had insurance on the car (it was hers). They settled with her insurance, and repaid my deductible.
If someone refuses liability, you don't run around trying to get them to make it right. You pay your insurance for a reason, to take care of stuff beyond your control or cover your ass.
I have been hit by a "friend" (loser and drug dealer) who denied having insurance and told me tough shit. I made the claim through my insurance, they looked into the situation, and they found out his girlfriend had insurance on the car (it was hers). They settled with her insurance, and repaid my deductible.
If someone refuses liability, you don't run around trying to get them to make it right. You pay your insurance for a reason, to take care of stuff beyond your control or cover your ass.
Last edited by YeuEmMaiMai; 01-11-2014 at 01:59 PM.
#20
Senior Moderator
With comprehensive coverage, you are covered for the things that are not your fault, and your rates don't go up. A $500 deductible isn't shit when you are talking about a $60k car. I would have asked for the dealer's insurance information. If they refused, one call to State Farm with what happened and the threat that they are about to cover $60k, and shit gets don't very fast.
YOU can do whatever you want, but there is a reason I shell out $100/month on my car. And it's not to deal with these issues myself.
YOU can do whatever you want, but there is a reason I shell out $100/month on my car. And it's not to deal with these issues myself.
The following 2 users liked this post by oo7spy:
justnspace (01-11-2014),
phee (01-12-2014)
#21
^gotta love it
thank God I deal with an honest dealership.. they damaged my car in 2007, owned up to it, fixed it, gave me a free loaner and gas, and in the end made it right. NEVER had to call my insurance agent, NEVER had to hassle the dealer. and the best part is, they still have me as a customer. If I can expect that service on a $30K car then I guess it's too much to ask for quality service when you buy a 56+K car, right?
and the reason I shell out $100 a month is to protect me from other drivers and to take care of me if I have an accident.
thank God I deal with an honest dealership.. they damaged my car in 2007, owned up to it, fixed it, gave me a free loaner and gas, and in the end made it right. NEVER had to call my insurance agent, NEVER had to hassle the dealer. and the best part is, they still have me as a customer. If I can expect that service on a $30K car then I guess it's too much to ask for quality service when you buy a 56+K car, right?
and the reason I shell out $100 a month is to protect me from other drivers and to take care of me if I have an accident.
#22
Rooting for Acura
iTrader: (1)
That sucks. He just pretty much gave the dealership three nice cars, for nothing. Even when his insurance company cuts him a check for the full replacement cost, he will need it to pay off the balance. Being as though he traded in a SS and a 69 he probably got shafted on the deal. I imagine he has little equity in the totaled ZL1, so that is why he is asking for 11K, probably just to be able to pay off the original loan and have some cash left over to purchase another ZL1. I think this is why he won't take the dealership's deal.
What should happen is that the dealership should give him the ZL1, since his was totaled under their watch, and let the insurance companies lawyers sort out the details.
What should happen is that the dealership should give him the ZL1, since his was totaled under their watch, and let the insurance companies lawyers sort out the details.
#24
#25
oh and anyone saying use your insurance.... you can bet your ASS that the dealer would be telling you the exact same thing if you totaled one of their loaner cars... They can't have it both ways...
#26
Moderator
iTrader: (1)
That sucks. He just pretty much gave the dealership three nice cars, for nothing. Even when his insurance company cuts him a check for the full replacement cost, he will need it to pay off the balance. Being as though he traded in a SS and a 69 he probably got shafted on the deal. I imagine he has little equity in the totaled ZL1, so that is why he is asking for 11K, probably just to be able to pay off the original loan and have some cash left over to purchase another ZL1. I think this is why he won't take the dealership's deal.
What should happen is that the dealership should give him the ZL1, since his was totaled under their watch, and let the insurance companies lawyers sort out the details.
What should happen is that the dealership should give him the ZL1, since his was totaled under their watch, and let the insurance companies lawyers sort out the details.
#27
Senior Moderator
#28
Senior Moderator
It's amazing to me that some people think the dealer should be replacing the car with a new one or compensating for an underwater loan. The guy got to drive his ZL1 for 2 years. That doesn't come for free. He should be compensated for the value of the car plus TTL to replace with a car of the same value. That's it.
#29
Someday, an RS6 Avant+
With comprehensive coverage, you are covered for the things that are not your fault, and your rates don't go up. A $500 deductible isn't shit when you are talking about a $60k car. I would have asked for the dealer's insurance information. If they refused, one call to State Farm with what happened and the threat that they are about to cover $60k, and shit gets don't very fast.
YOU can do whatever you want, but there is a reason I shell out $100/month on my car. And it's not to deal with these issues myself.
YOU can do whatever you want, but there is a reason I shell out $100/month on my car. And it's not to deal with these issues myself.
Having said that, the car owner has owned it for two years, and turns in the car for a minor problem and the dealer wrecks the car. So the dealer should owe him for the car minus depreciation, no?
I bet state law means the car, entrusted to the dealer under warranty/proper service, is the responsibility of the dealer until turned back over to the owner. If I am wrong let me know.
The following users liked this post:
oo7spy (01-12-2014)
#30
It's amazing to me that some people think the dealer should be replacing the car with a new one or compensating for an underwater loan. The guy got to drive his ZL1 for 2 years. That doesn't come for free. He should be compensated for the value of the car plus TTL to replace with a car of the same value. That's it.
did you actually read the story? I guess not. And for the record, the only time you should use your insurance in a claim like this is when it is a last resort.
Remind me to NEVER do business with you because I know if you screw something wrong, you won't do what is needed to make it right with the customer.
#31
Rooting for Acura
iTrader: (1)
It's amazing to me that some people think the dealer should be replacing the car with a new one or compensating for an underwater loan. The guy got to drive his ZL1 for 2 years. That doesn't come for free. He should be compensated for the value of the car plus TTL to replace with a car of the same value. That's it.
One thing's for sure, there is a bit of gamesmanship on both sides of the table.
The following users liked this post:
oo7spy (01-12-2014)
#32
Absolutely. You tell the insurance company what the dealer has done and they will go after them, or at least make things for them a bit uncomfortable.
Having said that, the car owner has owned it for two years, and turns in the car for a minor problem and the dealer wrecks the car. So the dealer should owe him for the car minus depreciation, no?
I bet state law means the car, entrusted to the dealer under warranty/proper service, is the responsibility of the dealer until turned back over to the owner. If I am wrong let me know.
Having said that, the car owner has owned it for two years, and turns in the car for a minor problem and the dealer wrecks the car. So the dealer should owe him for the car minus depreciation, no?
I bet state law means the car, entrusted to the dealer under warranty/proper service, is the responsibility of the dealer until turned back over to the owner. If I am wrong let me know.
But, the dealership may try to be getting out of it to claim they were not open during the time & the employee snuck in to steal the car.
#33
Moderator
I do not know if it's state law, but where I work that's how it goes & why we have an insurance policy that covers any damage an employee causes. I would highly assume every dealer has a policy like this that makes them responsible for any damages that may occur when the vehicle is in their possession.
But, the dealership may try to be getting out of it to claim they were not open during the time & the employee snuck in to steal the car.
But, the dealership may try to be getting out of it to claim they were not open during the time & the employee snuck in to steal the car.
#34
Senior Moderator
it's amazing that people think that the dealer should get away unscathed even after the stunt they tried to pull with the customer on the replacement...
did you actually read the story? I guess not. And for the record, the only time you should use your insurance in a claim like this is when it is a last resort.
Remind me to NEVER do business with you because I know if you screw something wrong, you won't do what is needed to make it right with the customer.
did you actually read the story? I guess not. And for the record, the only time you should use your insurance in a claim like this is when it is a last resort.
Remind me to NEVER do business with you because I know if you screw something wrong, you won't do what is needed to make it right with the customer.
#35
Id count my losses and give the shitty zl1to a poor guy 5o burn the shop down. Case closed.
#36
Moderator
The following 3 users liked this post by ttribe:
#37
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
#38
Moderator
Chapter Leader (South Florida Region)
Chapter Leader (South Florida Region)
iTrader: (6)
Moral: Should have gotten a Ford.
Seriously though, I'd just have my attorney talk to their attorney, over 10 G's, that's who's handling this claim anyway. Let THEIR insurance replace the car or give me all my money back on the purchase. Them firing the employee only covers their ass for future fuck ups, does nothing for my existing fuck up. Worst case, I'd Blues Brothers that Camaro right through the show room floor. Or at least make them give me a voucher on a Z06 Stingray...
Seriously though, I'd just have my attorney talk to their attorney, over 10 G's, that's who's handling this claim anyway. Let THEIR insurance replace the car or give me all my money back on the purchase. Them firing the employee only covers their ass for future fuck ups, does nothing for my existing fuck up. Worst case, I'd Blues Brothers that Camaro right through the show room floor. Or at least make them give me a voucher on a Z06 Stingray...
Last edited by rockstar143; 01-12-2014 at 05:25 PM.
#39
1. dealer crashed his car
2. dealer offers bogus deal with car that has 13K miles 2 owners and accident history stating it was 1 owner car...
No way he as the customer should have to accept that or taking a 12K hit from insurance payout....